Falsely invoking racism, as with the Duane Buck case, is just another example of how death penalty opponents will apply any deception, no matter how vile, to achieve their ends (1).

The problem for Buck and his supporters is that Dr. Quijano's entire testimony, with regard to Buck, specifically, was that Buck was at reduced risk of being a future danger, the opposite of the death penalty opponents claims. No surprise.

From US Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor's dissent, IN FAVOR OF BUCK: “In this case, first on direct examination by the defense, Dr. Quijano merely identified race as one statistical factor and pointed out that African-Americans were over represented in the criminal justice system; he did not state a causal relationship, nor did he link this statistic to Buck as an individual”

In fact, the opposite occurred. Dr. Quijano's testimony was about Buck's reduced risk of future danger.

The alleged racist component from the trial never existed.

Sotomayor attempted to create a racism based claim, by taking a prosecutor's inference out of context, an inference which never stated that Buck was at future danger based upon race, as Dr. Quijano stated that Buck was at reduced risk of re offending and never stated that Buck had an elevated risk because of race.

"Moreover, the prosecutor did not revisit the race-related testimony in closing or ask the jury to find future dangerousness based on Buck’s race." (2).

Alcala writes: "As to (Buck's) second claim (based upon racism) , I conclude that (Buck) has failed to make out a prima facie case for discriminatory intent in the prosecution's decision to seek the death penalty in his case." (3). "intent".

Alcala thought this such a minor issue that she didn't even bother to respond to the claim in the body of her opinion, but only in a footnote (3).